3 ms·

This hits close to an idea that has been floating around for a while. Basically, the Apportionment Act of 1911 needs to be replaced, with something that sets th

This hits close to an idea that has been floating around for a while. Basically, the Apportionment Act of 1911 needs to be replaced, with something that sets the number of representatives equal to some population number (say one representative for every 10k people. One of the suggestions is to set that number equal to the population of the smallest district. The idea gains a lot of support when its presented that people who live in certain states have "more" access to congress because their representatives represent fewer people. I'm to lazy to dig up the actual numbers but IIRC there is something like a 40% difference between the most populous district and the least. I've also wondered if massively increasing the number of representatives (say a few thousand) would help to remove some of the special interests, as it would take a small army to wine/dine the entire congress. Except, that I guess some of these interests basically have infinite money and could actually afford that army.

lakmear 10y ago
California is the worst in the United States when it comes to the population vs state legislator issue. 80 members of the assembly and 40 members of the senate for 38.4 million people. Compare that to Vermont with 150 members of the House and 30 senators for a population 600,000. California could be construed as taxation without representation. You are completely correct that more legislators means less big lobbyist influence.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  California citizens retain legislative power and exercise it fairly freely including on matters of taxation, where they have sharply constrained the elected legislature, and retain the power of referendum to undo any act of the legislature (whether on tax or other matters.) As such, whatever the ratio of citizens to members of the legislature, it's ludicrous to suggest that it is "taxation without representation."
  - lakmear 10y ago
    I didn't mean to imply I am complaining about taxes. It's just a phrase to hammer home the lack of representation.
zanny 10y ago
The problem is that laws themselves are localized. How would you form districts or states or even local government without a "local"? If you had one giant congress for all of the US that maintained humanity by having a representative per reasonable limits of human empathy (Dunbar's Number, or 150-300, and a good politician who is very empathic might reach up to 500) you would have a million and a half representatives, maximally democratic in that you only need find 300 like minded people in 320 million to support your candidate to have a representative, but completely alocal. That body would only be able to write laws that apply nationally, with no local distinctions, without bringing in the same defective mechanisms we see today pork barreling legislation into incomprehensible babel nobody reads with exceptionalism and stipulation on where and how the rules apply. You would need a way to make local law not geopgraphically local but ideologically local. I would love to hear ideas on how you could ever manage that, but my proposition sacrifices some of the humanity potential (if you are voting STV for a local council in a town of 3,000, and have 10 members, in theory each member represents 300 people but nobody will personally know all 3,000 and thus is limited in candidate to whomever they do know, or worse, someone they take at face value like they do today). You lose quite a bit of democracy there, in that some people probably will not have a candidate they like - there are certainly more than 10 distinct political viewpoints in 3,000 people. But I'd also think such systems would promote people to live with the like minded. If you disagree strongly with your neighbors... you are probably in a bad neighborhood for your own good and happiness. Surrounding yourself with enemies in your daily life provides a fulfilling life to few. But that goes down a deeper rabbit hole of people not considering nuance in where they life - they place work and profit ahead of all else, and will prefer a trash bin in the Bay Area over less lucrative ventures elsewhere they can have a more fulfilling life in general.

lakmear 10y ago

California is the worst in the United States when it comes to the population vs state legislator issue. 80 members of the assembly and 40 members of the senate for 38.4 million people. Compare that to Vermont with 150 members of the House and 30 senators for a population 600,000. California could be construed as taxation without representation. You are completely correct that more legislators means less big lobbyist influence.

dragonwriter 10y ago
California citizens retain legislative power and exercise it fairly freely including on matters of taxation, where they have sharply constrained the elected legislature, and retain the power of referendum to undo any act of the legislature (whether on tax or other matters.) As such, whatever the ratio of citizens to members of the legislature, it's ludicrous to suggest that it is "taxation without representation."
- lakmear 10y ago
  I didn't mean to imply I am complaining about taxes. It's just a phrase to hammer home the lack of representation.

zanny 10y ago

The problem is that laws themselves are localized. How would you form districts or states or even local government without a "local"? If you had one giant congress for all of the US that maintained humanity by having a representative per reasonable limits of human empathy (Dunbar's Number, or 150-300, and a good politician who is very empathic might reach up to 500) you would have a million and a half representatives, maximally democratic in that you only need find 300 like minded people in 320 million to support your candidate to have a representative, but completely alocal. That body would only be able to write laws that apply nationally, with no local distinctions, without bringing in the same defective mechanisms we see today pork barreling legislation into incomprehensible babel nobody reads with exceptionalism and stipulation on where and how the rules apply. You would need a way to make local law not geopgraphically local but ideologically local. I would love to hear ideas on how you could ever manage that, but my proposition sacrifices some of the humanity potential (if you are voting STV for a local council in a town of 3,000, and have 10 members, in theory each member represents 300 people but nobody will personally know all 3,000 and thus is limited in candidate to whomever they do know, or worse, someone they take at face value like they do today). You lose quite a bit of democracy there, in that some people probably will not have a candidate they like - there are certainly more than 10 distinct political viewpoints in 3,000 people. But I'd also think such systems would promote people to live with the like minded. If you disagree strongly with your neighbors... you are probably in a bad neighborhood for your own good and happiness. Surrounding yourself with enemies in your daily life provides a fulfilling life to few. But that goes down a deeper rabbit hole of people not considering nuance in where they life - they place work and profit ahead of all else, and will prefer a trash bin in the Bay Area over less lucrative ventures elsewhere they can have a more fulfilling life in general.